Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1929–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Woodington v. Shokoohigreen2 sentences2018Property earned after the manifestation of the intent to separate should still be considered part of the marital estate, but when considering such property, “the presumption of congruence that exists with respect to the distribution of the marital assets -6- becomes attenuated and may result in the nonacquiring spouse being entitled to no share or a lesser share of the property in light of all the apportionment factors.” Id. 2018Property earned after the manifestation of the intent to separate should still be considered part of the marital estate, but when considering such property, “the presumption of congruence that exists with respect to the distribution of the marital assets -6- becomes attenuated and may result in the nonacquiring spouse being entitled to no share or a lesser share of the property in light of all the apportionment factors.” Id. | 2 | 3 |
Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax Boardgreen1 sentence2011The problem with this approach, which the Court of Claims recognized, is that “[u]nder both the Due Process and the Commerce Clauses of the Constitution, a State may not, when imposing an income-based tax, ‘tax value earned outside its borders.’ ” Container Corp, 463 US at 164 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Scott v. Germanogreen2 sentences1982The apportionment system set forth in the constitution was a delicate system of compromises; the smaller counties might lose unjustly under this apportionment rule, but would benefit under the weighted land area/population formulae. [53] In re Apportionment of State Legislature â 1982, 413 Mich 119 , supra (part II, A). [54] Const 1963, art 4, § 2, ķ (2); see In re Apportionment of State Legislature â 1982, 413 Mich 158 , supra (fn 19). [55] In Scott v Germano, 381 US 407, 408-409 ; 85 S Ct 1525 ; 14 L Ed 2d 477 (1965), the Illinois Supreme Court, after holding the apportionment of the Illinoi 1982The apportionment system set forth in the constitution was a delicate system of compromises; the smaller counties might lose unjustly under this apportionment rule, but would benefit under the weighted land area/population formulae. [53] In re Apportionment of State Legislature â 1982, 413 Mich 119 , supra (part II, A). [54] Const 1963, art 4, § 2, ķ (2); see In re Apportionment of State Legislature â 1982, 413 Mich 158 , supra (fn 19). [55] In Scott v Germano, 381 US 407, 408-409 ; 85 S Ct 1525 ; 14 L Ed 2d 477 (1965), the Illinois Supreme Court, after holding the apportionment of the Illinoi | 1 | 1 |
Stokes' Estategreen2 sentences1929“While this latter case stands, there cannot be any doubt as to what this court must do. ’ ’ *434 In Stokes’ Estate (No. 1), 240 Pa. 277, 282 ( 87 Atl. 971, 973 ), after referring to and stating the Massachusetts rule, it was said: “If such a rule is desired in Pennsylvania, we think the change should be made by the legislature rather than by the courts.” It may be here noted that the legislature of the State of New York, in which State the courts at first seemed to follow the Kentucky rule (In re Kernochan, 104 N. Y. 618 [ 11 N. E. 149 ]), and later the Pennsylvania rule (In re Osborne, supra 1929“While this latter case stands, there cannot be any doubt as to what this court must do. ’ ’ *434 In Stokes’ Estate (No. 1), 240 Pa. 277, 282 ( 87 Atl. 971, 973 ), after referring to and stating the Massachusetts rule, it was said: “If such a rule is desired in Pennsylvania, we think the change should be made by the legislature rather than by the courts.” It may be here noted that the legislature of the State of New York, in which State the courts at first seemed to follow the Kentucky rule (In re Kernochan, 104 N. Y. 618 [ 11 N. E. 149 ]), and later the Pennsylvania rule (In re Osborne, supra | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Byington v. Byington
green
1 sentence2010Id. at 115-116 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
People Ex Rel. Engle v. Kerner
green
1 sentence1982The apportionment system set forth in the constitution was a delicate system of compromises; the smaller counties might lose unjustly under this apportionment rule, but would benefit under the weighted land area/population formulae. [53] In re Apportionment of State Legislature â 1982, 413 Mich 119 , supra (part II, A). [54] Const 1963, art 4, § 2, ķ (2); see In re Apportionment of State Legislature â 1982, 413 Mich 158 , supra (fn 19). [55] In Scott v Germano, 381 US 407, 408-409 ; 85 S Ct 1525 ; 14 L Ed 2d 477 (1965), the Illinois Supreme Court, after holding the apportionment of the Illinoi | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Hadley v. Junior College District of Metropolitan Kansas City
green
1 sentence1971The apportionment rule is to be invoked according to the Hadley case, supra, 397 US 50, 56 , "whenever a state or local government decides to select persons by popular election to perform governmental functions.” (Emphasis supplied.) | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Anderson v. Wirth
neutral
1 sentence1971In approving the apportionment of the excess land by the surveyor in the process of locating the alley, the trial court recognized the rule of possession limitation on the apportionment doctrine, as expressed in Anderson v. *636 Wirth (1902), 131 Mich 183 . | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Benton Harbor Malleable Industries v. General Motors Corp.
green
2 sentences1961It might be noted that the appeal board of the-workmen’s compensation department decided this instant case shortly after the opinion in Benton Harbor Malleable Industries v. General Motors Corporation, 358 Mich 684 , came down, and before we-had noted in a memorandum denying a motion for a rehearing, “the preceding opinion may not be read as holding the apportionment statute unconstitutional except as to the application sought herein.” In Benton Harbor there was no evidence introduced, at the apportionment hearing which served to establish liability against the defendant corporation.. 1961It might be noted that the appeal board of the workmen's compensation department decided this instant case shortly after the opinion in Benton Harbor Malleable Industries v. General Motors Corporation, 358 Mich 684 , came down, and before we had noted in a memorandum denying a motion for a rehearing, "the preceding opinion may not be read as holding the apportionment statute unconstitutional except as to the application sought herein." In Benton Harbor there was no evidence introduced at the apportionment hearing which served to establish liability against the defendant corporation. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Gee v. Olson
neutral
1 sentence1956To avoid possible misunderstanding, it is noted that Gee v. Olson, 320 Mich 274 , has been' carefully considered, and that we find nothing in it tending to support or oppose our conclusion that the aforesaid apportionment rule should be fitted to the facts of this case. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Eisner, Internal Revenue Collector v. MacOmber
green
1 sentence1929“Far from being a realization of profits of the stockholder, it tends rather to postpone such realization, in that the fund represented by the new stock has been transferred from surplus to capital, and no longer is available for actual distribution.” Eisner v. Macomber, supra. The practical difficulties which have been met with in applying the apportionment rule have been referred to in many cases. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
In Re the Final Accounting of Kernochan
green
2 sentences1929“While this latter case stands, there cannot be any doubt as to what this court must do. ’ ’ *434 In Stokes’ Estate (No. 1), 240 Pa. 277, 282 ( 87 Atl. 971, 973 ), after referring to and stating the Massachusetts rule, it was said: “If such a rule is desired in Pennsylvania, we think the change should be made by the legislature rather than by the courts.” It may be here noted that the legislature of the State of New York, in which State the courts at first seemed to follow the Kentucky rule (In re Kernochan, 104 N. Y. 618 [ 11 N. E. 149 ]), and later the Pennsylvania rule (In re Osborne, supra 1929“While this latter case stands, there cannot be any doubt as to what this court must do. ’ ’ *434 In Stokes’ Estate (No. 1), 240 Pa. 277, 282 ( 87 Atl. 971, 973 ), after referring to and stating the Massachusetts rule, it was said: “If such a rule is desired in Pennsylvania, we think the change should be made by the legislature rather than by the courts.” It may be here noted that the legislature of the State of New York, in which State the courts at first seemed to follow the Kentucky rule (In re Kernochan, 104 N. Y. 618 [ 11 N. E. 149 ]), and later the Pennsylvania rule (In re Osborne, supra | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.